UNITED
NATIONS,
August 3 --
Very late
Thursday
night, on the
eve of the
scheduled
Friday morning
General
Assembly vote
on Saudi
Arabia's draft
resolution
about Syria,
Inner City
Press noticed
that the UN
Journal went
online with a
link to a
version of the
resolution
that reverted
to including
sanctions and
a call for
Bashar al
Assad to step
down.

Still at 8 am
the UN's
Department of
Public
Information
e-mailed out
the "wrong"
resolution,
and the French
Mission to the
UN told the
world to tune
in and watch
the vote on
it.

Finally more
than six hours
after Inner
City Press put
the question,
explicitly for
its exclusive
story, to the
spokespeople
of the
President of
the GA, and
three of Ban
Ki-moon's
spokespeople,
a single
answer came
in, and then
was sent to
all:

Dear
Matthew,
Obviously it
is the wrong
version of the
draft
resolution.
The
Documentation
Control Unit
acknowledged
their mistake.
The right
version of the
text will be
distributed at
the GA Hall.

But there is
still a
problem.
Since the UN
Journal goes
out the night
before, and is
read in member
states'
capitals, the
confusion
caused is not
so easily
solved.

As one
diplomat put
it to Inner
City Press,
they can't
just change
things like
this. I take
my
instructions
from my
capital, based
on what is
sent out or
put online.

It seems the
vote would
have to be
postponed. But
the proponents
have primed
the(ir) media
- so will the
show go on?

The President
of the General
Assembly is
from Qatar,
which arms the
rebels in
Syria and has
declined to
answer Inner
City Press
questions
about how much
has been spent
on the Qatari
presidency of
the GA.

Inner
City Press,
which inthreearticles
this week
questioned why
the
Saudis met
with all
regional
groups except
Africa, heard
about the
meeting and
went to stake
it out, the
only media in
front. The
Saudi
Permanent
Representative
smiled as he
left, saying
"you are
everywhere."

African
diplomats
said "he had
to come" and
"he came just
to
say he had."
One let it be
known that the
UK has said
there are
already 120
votes for the
watered down
Saudi
resolution.

But now, at
least as
linked to in
the UN
Journal, it is
no longer
"watered
down." It has
been "watered
up."

Another
proponent
of the amended
resolution
told Inner
City Press he
expects
125 votes in
votes, while
having
projected only
70 if it had
not been
amended.

Now what? Can
the
now-confused
vote really go
forward? Watch
this site.

The watererd
down draft,
which Inner
City Press
obtained from
a well placed
member state
after 5 pm on
August 1, is
set for voting
August 3 at 11
am (not 10 am
as French
Ambassador
Gerard Araud
said on camera
midday
Thursday, just
to clear that
up). Inner
City Press is putting that
draft online
here.

But online
between late
August 2 and
early August 3
was the
watered up
version --
strangely,
with a long
list of
sponsors:

Coming out of
the African
Group meeting
with the Saudi
Permanent
Representative
past 6 pm on
August 2, of
these Inner
City Press saw
diplomats from
among others
Cote d'Ivoire
(Permanent
Representative
Bamba),
Djibouti,
Morocco
(Deputy
Permanent
Representative),
Saudi Arabia
(Permanent
Representative)
and, one
assumes,
Egypt. Libya's
Ibrahim
Dabbashi came
out, quickly,
but Libya is
not in this
list above.